Share this story

Last week, Iran’s chief of civil defense claimed that the Iranian government had fought off Israeli attempts to infect computer systems with what he described as a new version of Stuxnet—the malware reportedly developed jointly by the US and Israel that targeted Iran’s uranium-enrichment program. Gholamreza Jalali, chief of the National Passive Defense Organization (NPDO), told Iran's IRNA news service, “Recently, we discovered a new generation of Stuxnet which consisted of several parts... and was trying to enter our systems.”

On November 5, Iran Telecommunications Minister Mohammad-Javad Azari Jahromi accused Israel of being behind the attack, and he said that the malware was intended to “harm the country’s communication infrastructures.” Jahromi praised “technical teams” for shutting down the attack, saying that the attackers “returned empty-handed.” A report from Iran’s Tasnim news agency quoted Deputy Telecommunications Minister Hamid Fattahi as stating that more details of the cyber attacks would be made public soon.

Jahromi said that Iran would sue Israel over the attack through the International Court of Justice. The Iranian government has also said it would sue the US in the ICJ over the reinstatement of sanctions. Israel has remained silent regarding the accusations.

The claims come a week after the NPDO’s Jalali announced that President Hassan Rouhani’s cell phone had been "tapped" and was being replaced with a new, more secure device. This led to a statement by Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, exhorting Iran’s security apparatus to “confront infiltration through scientific, accurate, and up-to-date action.”

While Iran protests the alleged attacks—about which the Israeli government has been silent—Iranian hackers have continued to conduct their own cyber attacks. A recent report from security tools company Carbon Black based on data from the company's incident-response partners found that Iran had been a significant source of attacks in the third quarter of this year, with one incident-response professional noting, “We’ve seen a lot of destructive actions from Iran and North Korea lately, where they’ve effectively wiped machines they suspect of being forensically analyzed.”

Share this story

Sean Gallagher
Sean was previously Ars Technica's IT and National Security Editor. A former Navy officer, systems administrator, and network systems integrator with 20 years of IT journalism experience, he lives and works in Baltimore, Maryland. Emailsean.gallagher@arstechnica.com//Twitter@thepacketrat

Another day in international politics. Beats lobbing bombs at each other.

Targeted attacks on infrastructure can cause civilian casualties and social paralysis just as much as bombs can.

Yes, another day in International Politics. But at least the bombing would have a chance to end. In this kind of protracted "war", it's entirely possible to kill people in other countries (directly or indirectly), and the odds of that ending without bombs and death and destruction are exceptionally low.

You don't have to be pro-Israel to be anti-Iran. Far from it. I think many of Israel's actions in Palestine are reprehensible, but I also know to (rightly) fear an Islamic dictatorship who is actively funding terrorism groups and is likely a few years away from having a working nuclear bomb, should they resume research (which the US actions seem likely to cause).

The US created the Islamic Republic of Iran by holding a cruel dictator in power rather than risking a slide into communism. We should be engaging diplomatically, rather than trying sanctions which clearly don't work. But I don't think that the original Stuxnet was a bad idea, nor do I think that intense surveillance of what could be a potentially very dangerous country is a bad one either.

If the Israelis (slash US) did in fact target civilian infrastructure, that's a problem. Unless, of course, they were bugging them for espionage purposes.

The twin pillars of Iran's foreign policy - America is evil and Wipe Israel off the map - do not appear to be serving the country very well.

They serve Iran very well, America is an easy target to gather support against, and Israel is more than willing to play the bad guy (for a bunch of reasons including Israels' policy of nuclear hegemony in the region and historical antagonism against Arab states).

Israeli hackers offered Cambridge Analytica, the data collection firm that worked on U.S. President Donald Trump's election campaign, material on two politicians who are heads of state, the Guardian reported Wednesday, citing witnesses.

While Israelis are not necessarily number one in technical skills — that award goes to Russian hackers — Israelis are probably the best at thinking on their feet and adjusting to changing situations on the fly, a trait essential for success in a wide range of areas, including cyber-security, said Forzieri. “In modern attacks, the human factor — for example, getting someone to click on a link that will install malware — constitutes as much as 85% of a successful attack,” he said.

You don't have to be pro-Israel to be anti-Iran. Far from it. I think many of Israel's actions in Palestine are reprehensible, but I also know to (rightly) fear an Islamic dictatorship who is actively funding terrorism groups and is likely a few years away from having a working nuclear bomb, should they resume research (which the US actions seem likely to cause).

The US created the Islamic Republic of Iran by holding a cruel dictator in power rather than risking a slide into communism. We should be engaging diplomatically, rather than trying sanctions which clearly don't work. But I don't think that the original Stuxnet was a bad idea, nor do I think that intense surveillance of what could be a potentially very dangerous country is a bad one either.

If the Israelis (slash US) did in fact target civilian infrastructure, that's a problem. Unless, of course, they were bugging them for espionage purposes.

Agree. While Israel is not about to win Humanitarian Nation of the year Award any time soon, I don't see it going to Iran in a close vote tally either.

It would probably be good for people to be more concerned about Israel right now.

They are getting really nice and close to someone from whom we have distanced.

Quote:

First, he paid homage to Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. Then, he thanked the Red Army for defeating the Nazis. He spoke of the million Russian-speaking Jews now living in Israel. And he thanked the Russian president for fighting anti-Semitism. “I have great respect for Russia,” Mr Netanyahu said. “I have respect for its contribution to civilisation and the courage of its people.”...The two leaders have met nine times since early 2016 — including when Mr Netanyahu attended a Victory Day Parade in Moscow — and speak on the phone almost monthly.

It would probably be good for people to be more concerned about Israel right now.

They are getting really nice and close to someone from whom we have distanced.

Quote:

First, he paid homage to Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. Then, he thanked the Red Army for defeating the Nazis. He spoke of the million Russian-speaking Jews now living in Israel. And he thanked the Russian president for fighting anti-Semitism. “I have great respect for Russia,” Mr Netanyahu said. “I have respect for its contribution to civilisation and the courage of its people.”...The two leaders have met nine times since early 2016 — including when Mr Netanyahu attended a Victory Day Parade in Moscow — and speak on the phone almost monthly.

The twin pillars of Iran's foreign policy - America is evil and Wipe Israel off the map - do not appear to be serving the country very well.

They played along with our nuclear deal and are actively suing to keep it so it seems like diplomacy isn't serving them well either.

That’s because the deal was a scam, or PR stunt. It allowed them to exclude any site they declared military from inspection, defeating the point, and also Obama dismantled a years-long investigation into a Hezbollah international drug-dealing terrorism ring that led back to them, to negotiate the deal.

https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/ ... tary-sites - "Nobody is allowed to visit Iran's military sites," Ali Akbar Velayati told reporters in Iran recently, calling the push for such inspections a threat to its national security. Velayati is an adviser to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

https://www.politico.com/interactives/2 ... stigation/ - Obama dismantled years of investigation and evidence of Hezbollah trafficking drugs to the Americas to help fund its terrorism-spreading goals (really spreading of their brand of Islam in the form of radicals overthrowing governments, like in Yemen, but who’s counting)..

It was a sweet deal for them, and a PR win for Obama. But as far as inspecting their military sites for suspected nuclear purposing, or preventing their spread of terrorism it did nothing, and paved the way for them to make even more money towards those ends through their Hezbollah drug dealing ring as well as with oil sales..

The twin pillars of Iran's foreign policy - America is evil and Wipe Israel off the map - do not appear to be serving the country very well.

They played along with our nuclear deal and are actively suing to keep it so it seems like diplomacy isn't serving them well either.

That’s because the deal was a scam, or PR stunt. It allowed them to exclude any site they declared military from inspection, defeating the point, and also Obama dismantled a years-long investigation into a Hezbollah international drug-dealing terrorism ring that led back to them, to negotiate the deal.

https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/ ... tary-sites - "Nobody is allowed to visit Iran's military sites," Ali Akbar Velayati told reporters in Iran recently, calling the push for such inspections a threat to its national security. Velayati is an adviser to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

https://www.politico.com/interactives/2 ... stigation/ - Obama dismantled years of investigation and evidence of Hezbollah trafficking drugs to the Americas to help fund its terrorism-spreading goals (really spreading of their brand of Islam in the form of radicals overthrowing governments, like in Yemen, but who’s counting)..

It was a sweet deal for them, and a PR win for Obama. But as far as inspecting their military sites for suspected nuclear purposing, or preventing their spread of terrorism it did nothing, and paved the way for them to make even more money towards those ends through their Hezbollah drug dealing ring as well as with oil sales..

Meanwhile Trump bends over backward to suck the dick of Saudi Arabia. So much for preventing the spread of terrorism...

https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/ ... tary-sites - "Nobody is allowed to visit Iran's military sites," Ali Akbar Velayati told reporters in Iran recently, calling the push for such inspections a threat to its national security. Velayati is an adviser to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

That is a lie. Can you finish reading your citation? Especially the paragraph directly after the quote you pulled. Dishonesty is the only argument strategy your side has.

https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/ ... tary-sites - "Nobody is allowed to visit Iran's military sites," Ali Akbar Velayati told reporters in Iran recently, calling the push for such inspections a threat to its national security. Velayati is an adviser to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

That is a lie. Can you finish reading your citation? Especially the paragraph directly after the quote you pulled. Dishonesty is the only argument strategy your side has.

What is the lie? I followed it very closely and Iran resisted any inspections of military sites. The IAEA specifically never asked for inspections of military sites so they could say they never refused. When Trump brought it up they adamantly declared they would not now nor ever allow inspections of military sites. What part of those two facts are you having problems reconciling? Them being able to say they complied 100%, with a deal and body that never allowed or asked them to inspect military sites is an example of wordplay used to deceive you.Try reading for comprehension of the situation, instead of looking for the one sentence that allows you to ignore the reality. They did not allow inspections of military sites, and the IAEA played along until Trump specifically asked for inspection of military sites.

https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/ ... tary-sites - "Nobody is allowed to visit Iran's military sites," Ali Akbar Velayati told reporters in Iran recently, calling the push for such inspections a threat to its national security. Velayati is an adviser to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

That is a lie. Can you finish reading your citation? Especially the paragraph directly after the quote you pulled. Dishonesty is the only argument strategy your side has.

What is the lie? I followed it very closely and Iran resisted any inspections of military sites. The IAEA specifically never asked for inspections of military sites so they could say they never refused. When Trump brought it up they adamantly declared they would not now nor ever allow inspections of military sites. What part of those two facts are you having problems reconciling? Them being able to say they complied 100%, with a deal and body that never allowed or asked them to inspect military sites is an example of wordplay used to deceive you.Try reading for comprehension of the situation, instead of looking for the one sentence that allows you to ignore the reality. They did not allow inspections of military sites, and the IAEA played along until Trump specifically asked for inspection of military sites.

No access to military sites is debunked in the citation you posted but I need to learn reading comprehension?

https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/ ... tary-sites - "Nobody is allowed to visit Iran's military sites," Ali Akbar Velayati told reporters in Iran recently, calling the push for such inspections a threat to its national security. Velayati is an adviser to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

That is a lie. Can you finish reading your citation? Especially the paragraph directly after the quote you pulled. Dishonesty is the only argument strategy your side has.

Wow. The media wordplay seems to have done quite a number on you..

http://www.mei.edu/publications/iran-re ... ry-sites-0“The deputy head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) has said that the Islamic Republic will not allow international inspectors to visit the country’s military sites, the Iranian media reported. “No one in the Islamic Republic of Iran will give access to the military sites to the [UN] Agency,” Behrouz Kavalvandi said, referring to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). “There is basically no such issue in the safeguard, additional protocol and JCPOA [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or the nuclear deal Iran signed with world powers in 2015].” The Iranian official rejected all four conditions set by President Donald Trump about amending the nuclear accord, including a more robust and frequent inspection regime. “

The original agreement had laid out the process for requests to inspect any site including military sites. Try "reading for comprehension" in your broken English. It is right there is that citation you quoted but failed to read.

https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/ ... tary-sites - "Nobody is allowed to visit Iran's military sites," Ali Akbar Velayati told reporters in Iran recently, calling the push for such inspections a threat to its national security. Velayati is an adviser to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

That is a lie. Can you finish reading your citation? Especially the paragraph directly after the quote you pulled. Dishonesty is the only argument strategy your side has.

What is the lie? I followed it very closely and Iran resisted any inspections of military sites. The IAEA specifically never asked for inspections of military sites so they could say they never refused. When Trump brought it up they adamantly declared they would not now nor ever allow inspections of military sites. What part of those two facts are you having problems reconciling? Them being able to say they complied 100%, with a deal and body that never allowed or asked them to inspect military sites is an example of wordplay used to deceive you.Try reading for comprehension of the situation, instead of looking for the one sentence that allows you to ignore the reality. They did not allow inspections of military sites, and the IAEA played along until Trump specifically asked for inspection of military sites.

No access to military sites is debunked in the citation you posted but I need to learn reading comprehension?

It absolutely is not, if you read the full thing for comprehension. Specifically saying they did not deny access to sites they were never asked to allow inspection of by authorities they recognized is not the same thing as saying they allowed access to military sites. They straight out said they would not at the time nor would they ever, when it was brought up. As far as they were concerned, the deal that did not force them to allow inspection of military sites was robust and comprehensive enough..

You get hung up on speeches people make and ignore the text of the agreement including the citation you thought proved your point. If I did not know better I'd say you are trolling.

https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/ ... tary-sites - "Nobody is allowed to visit Iran's military sites," Ali Akbar Velayati told reporters in Iran recently, calling the push for such inspections a threat to its national security. Velayati is an adviser to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

That is a lie. Can you finish reading your citation? Especially the paragraph directly after the quote you pulled. Dishonesty is the only argument strategy your side has.

What is the lie? I followed it very closely and Iran resisted any inspections of military sites. The IAEA specifically never asked for inspections of military sites so they could say they never refused. When Trump brought it up they adamantly declared they would not now nor ever allow inspections of military sites. What part of those two facts are you having problems reconciling? Them being able to say they complied 100%, with a deal and body that never allowed or asked them to inspect military sites is an example of wordplay used to deceive you.Try reading for comprehension of the situation, instead of looking for the one sentence that allows you to ignore the reality. They did not allow inspections of military sites, and the IAEA played along until Trump specifically asked for inspection of military sites.

No access to military sites is debunked in the citation you posted but I need to learn reading comprehension?

It absolutely is not, if you read the full thing for comprehension. Specifically saying they did not deny access to sites they were never asked to allow inspection of by authorities they recognized is not the same thing as saying they allowed access to military sites. They straight out said they would not at the time nor would they ever, when it was brought up. As far as they were concerned, the deal that did not force them to allow inspection of military sites was robust and comprehensive enough..

You get hung up on speeches people make and ignore the text of the agreement including the citation you thought proved your point. If I did not know better I'd say you are trolling.

I doubt anything can help you understand you’ve been hoodwinked, from the sounds of it. Rationalize all you want. I was just giving you a chance to understand something you obviously didn’t. Last chance, especially since this was a very open secret and should be damn easy to look into for anyone who cares what’s true or not.https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran ... SKCN1B918E

https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/ ... tary-sites - "Nobody is allowed to visit Iran's military sites," Ali Akbar Velayati told reporters in Iran recently, calling the push for such inspections a threat to its national security. Velayati is an adviser to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

That is a lie. Can you finish reading your citation? Especially the paragraph directly after the quote you pulled. Dishonesty is the only argument strategy your side has.

Wow. The media wordplay seems to have done quite a number on you..

http://www.mei.edu/publications/iran-re ... ry-sites-0“The deputy head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) has said that the Islamic Republic will not allow international inspectors to visit the country’s military sites, the Iranian media reported. “No one in the Islamic Republic of Iran will give access to the military sites to the [UN] Agency,” Behrouz Kavalvandi said, referring to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). “There is basically no such issue in the safeguard, additional protocol and JCPOA [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or the nuclear deal Iran signed with world powers in 2015].” The Iranian official rejected all four conditions set by President Donald Trump about amending the nuclear accord, including a more robust and frequent inspection regime. “

The original agreement had laid out the process for requests to inspect any site including military sites. Try "reading for comprehension" in your broken English. It is right there is that citation you quoted but failed to read.

If you read enough sources, maybe you’ll understand the situation better. Just look up “Iran military sites inspection” and you will learn quickly at every point they refused inspection of sites they declared for military purposes. In my opinion, that largely defeated the point of the deal. You seem to be a victim of headline style wordplay, and a severe lack of historical context.https://www.belfercenter.org/publicatio ... inspection

“Before the deal, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei insisted that “inspection of our military sites is out of the question and is one of our red lines.” Foreigners, he elaborated, “shouldn’t be allowed at all to penetrate into the country's security and defensive boundaries under the pretext of supervision, and the country's military officials are not permitted at all to allow the foreigners to cross these boundaries or stop the country's defensive development under the pretext of supervision and inspection.”

While he has remained silent about access since the deal was signed, his proxies have not. On the day the deal was finalized, according to Iran’s Fars news service, the spokesman for Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, Behrouz Kamalvandi, said, “In the inked roadmap, no permission has been issued for the IAEA's access to any military centers and the nuclear scientists. We have explicitly announced our positions in this regard during the [past] negotiations."”

You don't have to be pro-Israel to be anti-Iran. Far from it. I think many of Israel's actions in Palestine are reprehensible, but I also know to (rightly) fear an Islamic dictatorship who is actively funding terrorism groups and is likely a few years away from having a working nuclear bomb, should they resume research (which the US actions seem likely to cause).

The US created the Islamic Republic of Iran by holding a cruel dictator in power rather than risking a slide into communism. We should be engaging diplomatically, rather than trying sanctions which clearly don't work. But I don't think that the original Stuxnet was a bad idea, nor do I think that intense surveillance of what could be a potentially very dangerous country is a bad one either.

If the Israelis (slash US) did in fact target civilian infrastructure, that's a problem. Unless, of course, they were bugging them for espionage purposes.

Good sum of the situation. Palestine is tough, the current Israeli government is unwilling to work on it but it is quite clear that the Palestinians (at least their leadership) have never been very interested in peace nor their Gulf-State supporters (who love dangling the carrot in front of every US president and having something to rile up Arabs about when needed).

Iran is a mess that we made. And are making worse. Deposing the Ayatollah would be a disaster. The absolute best goal to work for, I think, is convincing/subverting Artesh (regular Persian army) into deposing the Ayatollah and disbanding the IRGC, then turning over power to the democracy which nominally controls Iran anyway (it's not much, but it has sort of real elections, and is much better than Saudi Arabia). In the meantime I'd settle for getting Israel and Iran to settle down (harder than it seems) and maybe swinging towards a position where the US is pro-Iran, anti-Saudi.

Funny how the Zionists lobby seems almost immune to criticism in public discourse. When everyone is focused on Russia spending 35K to buy some Facebook ads to post memes, the Zionist lobby routinely funnel millions into pockets of US politicians (on both side of the aisle).

Every time you criticize the Zionist lobby or the action of the Israeli government, you immediately get called an anti-Semite. It's almost as if they (the Zionists) want to stoke the hatred on Jewish people so that they have more political ammunition.

You don't have to be pro-Israel to be anti-Iran. Far from it. I think many of Israel's actions in Palestine are reprehensible, but I also know to (rightly) fear an Islamic dictatorship who is actively funding terrorism groups and is likely a few years away from having a working nuclear bomb, should they resume research (which the US actions seem likely to cause).

The US created the Islamic Republic of Iran by holding a cruel dictator in power rather than risking a slide into communism. We should be engaging diplomatically, rather than trying sanctions which clearly don't work. But I don't think that the original Stuxnet was a bad idea, nor do I think that intense surveillance of what could be a potentially very dangerous country is a bad one either.

If the Israelis (slash US) did in fact target civilian infrastructure, that's a problem. Unless, of course, they were bugging them for espionage purposes.

I mean the US has like thousands of nukes, but they won't let anybody else get one?

Going by records (of both actual usage and non-nuclear foreign interventions), the US is actually the one that should not get nuclear weapons.